[Journal of the House of Representatives (pages 46, 47), June 26, 1749.]
Whereas the Great & Generall Court of the the [sic] Province of the Massachusetts Bay in June Last, On the Petitions of Dunstable & Nottingham has Ordered that the Inhabitants of Groton and Nottingham, Which by Order of the s’d Court the 6th of June 1747 Were On Certain Conditions Annexed to s’d Dunstable & (Which Conditions not being Complyed with) be Annexed to s’d. Dunstable to do duty & Receive priviledge there their neglect of Complyance notwithstanding, Unless the major part of the Inhabitants and ratable Estate belonging to the s’d. Groton & Nottingham respectively Shall on or before the first day of September next in Writing under their hands Transmitt to the Secretarys Office their desire not to Continue so Incorporated With the town of Dunstable as afores’d. Now therefore Wee the Subscribers Inhabitants of Groton & Nottingham Sett of as afores’d. do hereby Signifie Our desire not to Continue so Incorporated with the town of Dunstable as afores’d. but to be Sett at Liberty As tho that Order of Court had not ben passed
Dated the 10th day of July 1749
Inhabitants of Groton
Timothy Read
Joseph fletcher
John Swallow
Samuel Comings
Benjamin Robbins
Joseph Spalding iuner
Inhabitants of Nottingham
Samuell Gould Robert Fletcher Joseph perriaham Daken [Deacon?] iohn Collans Zacheus Spaulding and ten others
[Massachusetts Archives, cxv, 515.]
A manuscript plan of Dunstable, made by Joseph Blanchard, in the autumn of 1748, and accompanying these papers among the Archives (cxv, 519), has considerable interest for the local antiquary.
In the course of a few years some of these Groton signers reconsidered the matter, and changed their minds. It appears from the following communication that the question of the site of the meeting-house had some influence in the matter:—